520 P.3d 1184
Alaska Ct. App.2022Background
- Sarah Romines Skupa, a longtime bookkeeper, stole funds from her employer totaling over $400,000; she was indicted on seven counts of scheme to defraud but pled guilty to one count of first‑degree theft (admitting theft of $25,000 or more).
- Sentencing was within the presumptive range; the superior court imposed 2 years (1 year suspended) and 5 years’ probation, and later ordered $415,554.61 in restitution after a three‑day restitution hearing.
- The State presented a forensic report (University of Alaska Anchorage Justice for Fraud Victims Project) identifying $497,293.56 in potentially fraudulent transactions and additional items warranting further investigation; the company owner and the report author testified.
- Skupa objected in the superior court that criminal restitution procedures denied her civil‑trial protections; on appeal she pressed a Sixth Amendment jury‑trial argument (Apprendi line) she had not raised below and had waived by pleading guilty.
- The court declined to decide whether Apprendi applies to indeterminate restitution (following widespread authority that it does not), found Skupa had waived any jury right by plea, applied the preponderance standard, and affirmed restitution, including $28,699.88 for unauthorized Home Depot purchases (disputing $14,815.81 of that amount).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sixth Amendment (Apprendi/Blakely/Alleyne) requires jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt on restitution amount, and whether failure to have a jury constituted plain error | Skupa: Restitution is punitive/part of criminal penalty; under Apprendi line any fact increasing penalty (here restitution beyond admitted $25,000) must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; failing to raise this at trial is plain error | State: Restitution is compensatory and indeterminate (limited to actual victim losses); Apprendi line does not apply; moreover Skupa waived jury rights by pleading guilty and did not move to withdraw plea | Court: Did not decide Apprendi applicability; held no plain error because Skupa waived the jury right by plea and, in any event, prevailing authority treats indeterminate restitution as outside Apprendi; affirmed restitution |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support $28,699.88 in Home Depot charges (specifically $14,815.81 disputed portion) | Skupa: Insufficient proof linking the contested Home Depot items to her theft (challenges reliance on presentence report and some invoice links) | State: Forensic report, company owner testimony, delivery addresses linked to Skupa, items not found at company, search of Skupa’s home (presentence report) tied items to her; preponderance of evidence standard controls | Court: Preponderance standard met; admitted links (flooring/fencing delivered to her home) and corroborating evidence supported the entire $28,699.88 award; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (statutory maximum defined by facts in jury verdict or defendant admissions)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012) (Apprendi/Blakely principles apply to criminal fines)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that raise mandatory minimums are elements for the jury)
- Noffsinger v. State, 850 P.2d 647 (Alaska App. 1993) (Alaska uses preponderance standard for proving restitution amount)